PDA

View Full Version : Onward Christian Soldiers !



Leon m
04-21-2007, 10:02 AM
What's so important about the potentially powerful influence of conservative evangelical Christians on environmental issues, especially global warming? For years, many of these evangelicals have been charging environmentalists-and those progressive Christians who support environmentalism-with idolatry for lavishing worship on "God's creation" rather than God. Moreover, they have been skeptical, if not downright hostile, toward government-mandated protection of the environment.

So as President Bush early in his administration initiated efforts to roll back a slew of federal environmental regulations-including safeguards on clean air and water and protections against commercial logging and drilling on public lands, among others-and withdrew American support for the Kyoto treaty on global warming, he knew he could count on conservative evangelicals to remain firmly in his corner.

But changes are afoot. In February 2006, a group of 86 respected evangelical Christian leaders from across the nation unveiled a campaign for environmental reform and put out a statement calling on all Christians to push for federal legislation that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to stem global warming. This Evangelical Climate Initiative, which has helped publicly solidify a nascent environmentalism in the evangelical community, also intends to lobby federal legislators, hold environmental meetings at churches and colleges, and run television and radio ads that link drought, starvation, and hurricanes to global warming.

"The same love for God and neighbor that compels us to preach salvation through Jesus Christ, protect the unborn, preserve the family and the sanctity of marriage, and take the whole Gospel to a hurting world, also compels us to recognize that human-induced climate change is a serious Christian issue requiring action now," their statement read in part.

Osborne Russell
04-21-2007, 12:07 PM
I smell a gongo.

Leon m
04-21-2007, 05:51 PM
I smell a gongo.

Whats a gongo ?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-21-2007, 06:15 PM
Government
Organised
Non
Government
Organisation

This is a neologism by George.

Seems functionally equivalent to the old "Quango".

Leon m
04-21-2007, 08:11 PM
Well in that case I don't think so. This is a conservative movement...the last thing the conservative government wants is for their people to start caring about the environment.

oakman
04-21-2007, 08:19 PM
The whole point of the death, burial, and resurection of Jesus was to return man to his position with God that he held before Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden. Adam was commanded to watch over the earth and take care of it. . .

so, hopefully more Christians are finding out what their Bible really says and paying attention.

Leon m
04-22-2007, 08:25 AM
The whole point of the death, burial, and resurection of Jesus was to return man to his position with God that he held before Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden. Adam was commanded to watch over the earth and take care of it. . .

so, hopefully more Christians are finding out what their Bible really says and paying attention.

I like that idea. :)

Leon m
04-23-2007, 10:22 AM
Just curiuos...How many christians out there have changed there views on the environment lately ?

Just incase your wondering about me...I do consider myself a Christian although I don't attend church anymore, and I was leaning towards a pagan bent for a while...but if the main stream christians keep on this respect for nature thing, you just may find me sitting in a pew someday again.

Kaa
04-23-2007, 10:26 AM
...but if the main stream christians keep on this respect for nature thing, you just may find me sitting in a pew someday again.

That's a rather unusual approach :D

Traditional Christianity, by the way, is quite explicit that the whole point of nature is to be useful to man, period.

Kaa

Osborne Russell
04-23-2007, 10:27 AM
Well in that case I don't think so. This is a conservative movement...the last thing the conservative government wants is for their people to start caring about the environment.

That's what they said about nation building.

Leon m
04-23-2007, 10:31 AM
Traditional Christianity, by the way, is quite explicit that the whole point of nature is to be useful to man, period.

Kaa

I know, thats what turned me off to it. I don't like to think of nature as just stuff we can use. I like to think of it as stuff we are.

George Roberts
04-23-2007, 11:42 AM
"dam was commanded to watch over the earth and take care of it. . ."

Not having been there, I will accept your word on the matter.

So we should go back to being gatherers?

Leon m
04-23-2007, 11:46 AM
"So we should go back to being gatherers?

We still are and always have been...problem is we are gathering way more than we need these days...It's all about balance young grasshopper.

Rick Starr
04-23-2007, 11:50 AM
Funny, I was just thinking the other day that all the republicans have to do is adopt the environment as an issue (since the democrats don't seem to want it anymore) and there would be no stopping them.

Rick Starr
04-23-2007, 11:52 AM
We still are and always have been...problem is we are gathering way more than we need these days...It's all about balance young grasshopper.

Yeah, no kidding.

"Should we go back to being gatherers?"

Sheesh.

Leon m
04-23-2007, 11:56 AM
Funny, I was just thinking the other day that all the republicans have to do is adopt the environment as an issue (since the democrats don't seem to want it anymore) and there would be no stopping them.

This may be true. If they could prove to me that they were actually going to do something for the environment...even I (I can't believe Im about to say this) might vote Republican.

Osborne Russell
04-23-2007, 12:22 PM
I know, thats what turned me off to it. I don't like to think of nature as just stuff we can use. I like to think of it as stuff we are.

If we are nature, and nature is us, then nature is infected with Original Sin.

Leon m
04-23-2007, 12:36 PM
If we are nature, and nature is us, then nature is infected with Original Sin.

Do we really have to go there (said in a winey voice) ? Lets just stick to the topic, shall we.


Answer to your question...ok...sure why not.

Osborne Russell
04-23-2007, 01:05 PM
This may be true. If they could prove to me that they were actually going to do something for the environment...even I (I can't believe Im about to say this) might vote Republican.

Now I really smell a gongo.

mister_moon
04-23-2007, 01:09 PM
Well in that case I don't think so. This is a conservative movement...the last thing the conservative government wants is for their people to start caring about the environment.

If you and your ilk really believe that, then there is no hope for our children. There will be open shooting warfare between the right and the left in 20 years if these kinds of attitudes continue to fester.

Don't be hatin'...

Leon m
04-23-2007, 01:17 PM
If you and your ilk really believe that, then there is no hope for our children. There will be open shooting warfare between the right and the left in 20 years if these kinds of attitudes continue to fester.

Don't be hatin'...

Aint hatin...But why should I believe other wise ? What have the Republicans done for the environment sept pillage ?

Leon m
04-23-2007, 01:32 PM
Case in point,Bush administrations lifts ban on mountian top removal minning ...

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/21_tn.jpg

Leon m
04-23-2007, 01:35 PM
Here is a Sampling of Bush's Policies

Hazardous Waste Sites. The Bushpolicy toward hazardous waste is hazardous to public health. Toxic waste cleanups have been underfunded by an average of more than $300 million per year since 2001. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly reversed a long-standing environmental safeguard by lifting a 25-year old ban on the sale of land contaminated with cancer-causing PCBs. Shortly afterwards, the EPA began a rulemaking process to reclassify industrial materials as recyclable in order to exempt more hazardous waste from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Land Conservation. The White House has not proven itself to be a good steward of America's forests, parks and special places. In its quest to boost logging in national forests -- under the guise of wildfire prevention -- the Forest Service has weakened environmental protections and curtailed public participation. Meanwhile, the Interior Department has underfunded and mismanaged national parks, accelerated energy development on public lands and worked to reverse a decade's worth of environmentally friendly mining and grazing reforms.


Waters and Wetlands. Almost every aspect of clean water protection -- from wetlands and sewage control to efforts to reduce factory farm pollution -- is under siege. More than 300,000 miles of the nation's rivers and shorelines -- and some 5 million acres of the lakes -- are "impaired," according to EPA. In fact, after years of improvement, 45 percent of the nation's assessed waterways are too polluted for fishing or swimming, up from 40 percent a few years ago.
Oceans. Our oceans face far-reaching problems, ranging from invasive species to climate change. But the sharp decline of ocean health is primarily the result of overfishing and pollution (particularly coastal habitat degradation). At the heart of the recommendations in recent reports by the independent Pew Commission and the presidentially appointed U.S. Commission on Oceans Policy is the need to shift human ocean activity away from exploitation and resource extraction toward stewardship, revitalization and recovery. Both reports conclude that capitalizing on this historic opportunity to significantly advance ocean conservation will require bold, visionary political leadership.

Air Quality. The White House touts its air pollution policies while trying to undo decades of progress. The EPA's air pollution plan is weaker than the Clean Air Act, and its mercury proposal would allow seven times as much this dangerous toxin to collect in our lakes and streams. While the new proposal to clean up heavy-duty diesels is commendable, it stands in stark contrast to the rest of the administration's abysmal record on air pollution. Most notably, the White House avoids discussing its rollback of the Clean Air Act's "New Source Review" program, which allows some of the dirtiest power plants in the country to emit more pollution for a longer period of time than what current law, fully enforced, would allow.

Global Warming. Whether it is ignoring its own National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study saying global warming is happening and has real consequences, or adopting do-nothing voluntary programs, the White House is not taking global warming seriously. Making matters worse, its energy policy amounts to more dirty forms of energy such as oil and coal, at the expense of efficiency and cleaner technology such as wind and solar -- ensuring that the United States remains dangerously dependent on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions.


A Summary of Bush's "Seven Deadly Sins" (Sierra Club)


Turning Mom Into a Superfund Site: Bush’s proposal to weaken clean-air rules would put three times more mercury into our air and water than existing rules would allow. One in six women has enough mercury in her system to risk her kid having brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, seizures, and speech impediments.
Belly Flop in a Cesspool: On his inauguration day, Bush rescinded a rule to cut down on sewage dumping. After slashing a regulation to reduce the arsenic in drinking water, he agreed to some cuts following a public outcry.

Playing With Fire: Bush touted his "Healthy Forests Initiative" as a way to stop catastrophic wildfires, but it actually allows more logging on 190 million acres--which could lead to bigger fires, because it lets timber companies cut the large trees that resist burning.

Lying, Denying, Censoring, Cheating, and Other Misundemocratic Behavior: Bush’s EPA sliced a whole chapter on climate change from its 2002 annual report on pollution. Additionally, after the attack on the World Trade Center, the EPA found levels of asbestos and other pollution thousands of times above normal around the disaster site, but the White House ordered the agency to announce that it was safe.

Coddling Criminals: Corporate criminals escape Bush’s tough on crime stance – Bush’s first year in office, clean-air inspections fell off 30 percent, clean-water and clean-air criminal referrals declined by 50 percent, and criminal referrals for violations of rules controlling toxic substances dropped 80 percent.

Putting Polluters on Welfare: But Bush policy exempts the polluters from paying, so taxpayers will now foot the Superfund bill.

Flattening Teddy's Bears and Twain's Frogs: The Bush administration has weakened environmental protection on 234 million acres, meaning more logging, roadbuilding, mining, oil drilling and snowmobiling. Bush also removed protection from 4 million acres of the California red-legged jumping frog’s habitat.

Leon m
04-23-2007, 01:37 PM
If you and your ilk really believe that, ...

Yes my "ilk" really does believe that...and with good reason...maybe it's time your "ilk" cleans up it's act. ;)

mister_moon
04-23-2007, 02:57 PM
Your problem is that you are equating "Bush" with "conservative".

BTW, I'm teaching my kids to shoot. ;)

Osborne Russell
04-23-2007, 04:23 PM
A conservative would favor conservation because other things being equal, the past rate of consumption is sustainable, whereas a higher rate may not be.

Nanoose
04-23-2007, 06:00 PM
Traditional Christianity, by the way, is quite explicit that the whole point of nature is to be useful to man, period.



Not sure of your experience of/with traditional Christianity, Kaa... but my understanding is that God gave Adam reponsibility to "keep" the earth (Earth Keeping) - to tend it, be a good steward of it, not to "use" it. Christians should all be tree huggers AFAIK.

Deb

Osborne Russell
04-23-2007, 06:07 PM
Not sure of your experience of/with traditional Christianity, Kaa... but my understanding is that God gave Adam reponsibility to "keep" the earth (Earth Keeping) - to tend it, be a good steward of it, not to "use" it. Christians should all be tree huggers AFAIK.

His experience has nothing to do with it. He's stating the facts.

Sooner or later you must decide to accept or reject the traditional
Christian position. That it is anti-nature, as many other strains of MEM still explicitly are, is not subject to this "not sure" BS. It's sure, OK? It's been sure for millenia.

Leon m
04-23-2007, 07:03 PM
".

BTW, I'm teaching my kids to shoot. ;)

Me too, bow and rifle.;)

Nanoose
04-23-2007, 11:11 PM
His experience has nothing to do with it. He's stating the facts.

Sooner or later you must decide to accept or reject the traditional
Christian position. That it is anti-nature, as many other strains of MEM still explicitly are, is not subject to this "not sure" BS. It's sure, OK? It's been sure for millenia.

Thanks, Osborne. I was talking to Kaa.

The "SURE", BIBLICAL Christian position is as I stated, Osborne. You may be stating the traditional one, but I'll go with the biblical one, thanks. ;) Look it up. :rolleyes:

Landrith
04-23-2007, 11:21 PM
Conservatives and Libertarians believe in private property ownership and strong rights. The unavoidable fact is that a higher degree of private ownership has led to better stewardship and ecology. We did this experiment already. Who had the cleaner environment USA or USSR?

shamus
04-23-2007, 11:37 PM
be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth and have dominion over it...is how I seem to remember it

It sure sounds like "Earth Keeping" to me Osborne, how did you come to the conclusion it was exploitation?;)

Leon m
04-24-2007, 06:54 AM
Your problem is that you are equating "Bush" with "conservative".



Well he sure isn't liberal. I see Bush as a true conservative. Problem with Bush is he is not clever enough to cover his tracks like past conservatives have.

Kaa
04-24-2007, 11:48 AM
Not sure of your experience of/with traditional Christianity, Kaa... but my understanding is that God gave Adam reponsibility to "keep" the earth (Earth Keeping) - to tend it, be a good steward of it, not to "use" it. Christians should all be tree huggers AFAIK.

Deb

Well, I really don't want to turn it into another religious debate of Biblical proportions :D but...

"Modern scholars have made heroic efforts to reinterpret God's messages to Adam in Genesis, to show that God meant us to have stewardship over the earth rather than unconditional mastery. But these efforts struggle against the evidence.

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," says God in Genesis 1:26 "and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." The word used for dominion is the Hebrew radah, which means "tread down, subjugate, prevail against, rule over." [Strong's concordance]

Two verses later he instructs Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." The word translated as subdue is the Hebrew kabash, which means to tread down, conquer, subjugate, violate, bring into bondage.

When God blesses Noah and his family after the flood, he says

"The fear of you and the dread [chath - terror] of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered." [Genesis 9:1-4] These statements could not be clearer. God has made man complete master of all living things on earth. There is no question of stewardship, not a whisper that animals may have inherent value in themselves. Humans are cast in the role of conqueror and master, not of steward. There is no hint that they are expected to care for the earth and for animals as a condition of God's favour."

Kaa

Osborne Russell
04-24-2007, 12:54 PM
And that, as they say, is that.

Leon m
04-24-2007, 01:37 PM
What I would like to know is who was there wrighting all this down when God was speaking to Adam ? Or maybe ...just maybe something got lost in translation many hundreds of years after the fact.

Cut the Christians some slack... their trying to do right. :)

Nick C
04-25-2007, 05:40 PM
Come on the Republican Party is the 'me' Party.
The court three main interests that I can see.

Big Business - That's why they don't like environmental stuff. The conservative right is a fringe benefit here.

NRA - Lots of gun owners vote and it doesn't seem to bother big business or the fundalmentalists

Fundamental Religious Right - They are nice big group held together by a single lobby that can be persuaded to vote for Republicans.

So the Republicans have these three voting blocs that all seem to get along for political purposes.

Now, this is still a minority, but that's no problem because the Democrats represent all the other positions and they will never all get along together. So you see, divesity is not a good thing, not only does nothing get done, but each group is too busy trying to make a law that keeps the other groups from doing what they do. (no hunting, no fur coats, can't eat horse meat, fishes mouthes hurt from hooks, don't cut the trees, don't build dams, don't tear down dams, and on it goes.)

Leon m
04-26-2007, 01:56 PM
Fundamental Religious Right - They are nice big group held together by a single lobby that can be persuaded to vote for Republicans.




I predict they're about to have a civil war